As a long term Texan, I can tell you, we had that cold and worse in the past, and never even had a brownout.
This says otherwise. There were major blackouts in Texas in 2011 for much the same reasons.
Additionally, northern Texas hit record low temperatures last winter. As in colder than it had been in 72 years. So no, Texas had not “had that cold and worse in the past”.
This is a direct result of trying to 'green up' the grid.
The actual cause was that natural gas power plants (and the pipes supplying natural gas) were never winterized (thanks in part to a complete lack of regulation that would require them to do so and the [completely wrong and unjustifiable] expectation by power companies that winterization would be unnecessary), so key parts of the infrastructure froze, causing major power shortages in much of Texas.
When we were on coal, and natural gas, our grid would take whatever mother nature threw at it. Now not so much.
As mentioned before, the grid did not, in fact, “take whatever Mother Nature threw at it”, and Mother Nature threw more at it last winter than it had in many decades.
More importantly, less than 20% of all the electrical power for the winter in Texas was ever expected to come from renewable sources, such as wind. Texas still gets most of its power from natural gas (and, to a lesser extent, other nonrenewable sources like coal or nuclear power). The way you worded your statement suggests that Texas is no longer on coal and natural gas, but that is not true. And, in fact, most of the losses came from natural gas, not from renewable sources.
Setting aside the question of how well a single opinion article posted on a website reflects the opinions of a particular co-founder who did not write that article and may not have been involved in approving it, this is about why private companies allegedly should not continue to offer some other particular private company’s content. This is not censorship. You might argue it’s cancel culture, but it is absolutely not censorship.
Because they lied a lot to the FCC about certain material things to try to get support for a major merger/acquisition, which would ordinarily be grounds for suspending their broadcasting license. It has nothing to do with the content of the speech or the opinions of the speaker. Again, that’s not censorship.
How in the world could you possibly consider that “censorship”? Or even “cancel culture”? Notice that she did not do the same for any previous conservative nominees for SCOTUS, which suggests that it has to do with Kauvanaugh, specifically, and not conservatives in general.
Yeah... She's a total left-wing hack that does want to censor conservatives.
You have not provided even a single piece of evidence that actually supports that assertion.
Nice try, Bode. Next time, show some actual receipts. You might not get fact checked into oblivion. ;)
Whereas you present what you call “actual receipts” and then get fact-checked into oblivion.
we've already firmly established here that the federal government has authority to implement some exceptions to the 1st Amendment for exigent circumstances that did not exist in year 1789. (?)
You’re confusing the 1st and 4th Amendments. There is no “exigent circumstances” exception to the 1st Amendment.
There are some exceptions to the 1A (such as knowingly false defamatory statements of fact, true threats, and knowing, direct incitement to imminent lawless action), but the Supreme Court has made it crystal clear on multiple occasions, including fairly recently, that they will not create any new exceptions to the 1st Amendment beyond what they already have.
Millennials and young people are less likely to be on Facebook. It’s actually becoming a running gag that only older people use Facebook anymore.
Millennials are getting older. I’m a millennial, and I’m 30.
Honestly, the marketing sucked. The only reason I knew the movie existed before I heard about this story is because my parents happened to see it and I remembered that, and they watched it because they wanted to go to see a movie, and that one happened to be showing. Sure, they loved it, but none of us learned it existed through any marketing or before the movie was released.
Millennials weren’t even part of the target demographic to begin with.
Fewer people are going to theaters right now due to the pandemic (among other factors), so releasing the movie in theaters exclusively was going to reduce the success compared to previous films.
The competition is streaming, not Facebook or smartphones.
Seriously, I don’t understand why us millennials are always to blame for stuff like this in general, but this is absurdly wrong.
Re: Section 230 offers a deal: be immune HOSTS or liable publish
As has been explained to you before, there is no host/publisher distinction anywhere in §230. Which good for the public, as has also been explained to you before.
The things we’re talking about expanding are expressly designed to be expanded, and—in fact—that is their entire purpose. There’s nothing criminal about it.
Again, every browser has this tool, and its express purpose is to reveal these nodes and allow them to be expanded. You don’t even need to have much computer know-how or download any additional tools to do this.
I agree with you, but on the specific question he asked, that’s not exactly relevant. He’s saying that his stance—even if it is completely illogical and unnecessary and wrong—is not necessarily proof that he is homophobic or transphobic. I’d honestly be willing to concede that narrow issue; not every crazy idea about marriage is based on ignorance or prejudice regarding sex, gender, or humane sexuality, and this doesn’t mean that he isn’t completely and utterly wrong in that or other stances, nor does it mean that he’s not a homophobe or transphobe. It just means he has a crazy and wrong idea.
Personally, I will agree that holding your position—as absurd a position as it is—is not, at least as stated, necessarily transphobic, homophobic, or biphobic. It has a number of other problems, and this doesn’t necessarily mean you are not bigoted, but I will go as far as to say that bringing up that particular stance of yours is insufficient evidence of those particular varieties of bigotry at the very least. If that was your point, I will concede that specific issue.
I mean, it was in your list of the preceding terms leading to “marriage”.
It’s fine if I’m wrong about that, but if I am right, it shows a significant flaw in your argument. That’s why I mentioned it.
On a completely unrelated note—and this isn’t a criticism per se but just something I find amusing—I find it funny that you ended up calling the study of the evolution, origins, and transformation of words “entomology”—which is the study of insects among other similar organisms—rather than “etymology”. Again, this one isn’t a criticism or me pointing it out for the purpose of you correcting it or anything like that. It’s a fairly common mistake, after all, it’s easy to miss, and it was clear what you intended to say from context. It’s just one I find especially amusing.
You can get married if you want. I’ll shake my head and admit I can’t understand using such a term willingly.
I’d imagine because it’s just a word, was never intended to offend, and isn’t inherently offensive. As I’ve said in at least one other comment, “A rose by any other name is still a rose.”
But at the moment those of us who want a bonding that is purely and completely secular are out of luck.
The legal process of marriage is purely and completely secular, so that’s false.
Unless I miss my guess, I believe that your logic necessarily means that the English word “merge” also has religious origins. Does that mean we need to remove that word from the government, too?
On the post: Texas Regulators Learned Nothing From February's Carnage, Prepare To Repeat The Cycle
Re:
This says otherwise. There were major blackouts in Texas in 2011 for much the same reasons.
Additionally, northern Texas hit record low temperatures last winter. As in colder than it had been in 72 years. So no, Texas had not “had that cold and worse in the past”.
This claim has been refuted multiple times by multiple fact-checkers. “Green energy” was not, in fact, the most significant reason for the blackouts in 2020.
The actual cause was that natural gas power plants (and the pipes supplying natural gas) were never winterized (thanks in part to a complete lack of regulation that would require them to do so and the [completely wrong and unjustifiable] expectation by power companies that winterization would be unnecessary), so key parts of the infrastructure froze, causing major power shortages in much of Texas.
As mentioned before, the grid did not, in fact, “take whatever Mother Nature threw at it”, and Mother Nature threw more at it last winter than it had in many decades.
More importantly, less than 20% of all the electrical power for the winter in Texas was ever expected to come from renewable sources, such as wind. Texas still gets most of its power from natural gas (and, to a lesser extent, other nonrenewable sources like coal or nuclear power). The way you worded your statement suggests that Texas is no longer on coal and natural gas, but that is not true. And, in fact, most of the losses came from natural gas, not from renewable sources.
On the post: Texas Regulators Learned Nothing From February's Carnage, Prepare To Repeat The Cycle
Re:
Texas isn’t “well-regulated”. That’s the whole point.
On the post: FAA Ignores FCC, Limits U.S. 5G Over Unsubstantiated Safety Concerns
Re: Re: Re:
The difference is that, with 5G, we have data suggesting it does not cause the problem alleged.
On the post: GOP Claim That Biden FCC Nom Gigi Sohn Wants To 'Censor Conservatives' Is AT&T & Rupert Murdoch Backed Gibberish
Re: Ah yes...
Setting aside the question of how well a single opinion article posted on a website reflects the opinions of a particular co-founder who did not write that article and may not have been involved in approving it, this is about why private companies allegedly should not continue to offer some other particular private company’s content. This is not censorship. You might argue it’s cancel culture, but it is absolutely not censorship.
Because they lied a lot to the FCC about certain material things to try to get support for a major merger/acquisition, which would ordinarily be grounds for suspending their broadcasting license. It has nothing to do with the content of the speech or the opinions of the speaker. Again, that’s not censorship.
How in the world could you possibly consider that “censorship”? Or even “cancel culture”? Notice that she did not do the same for any previous conservative nominees for SCOTUS, which suggests that it has to do with Kauvanaugh, specifically, and not conservatives in general.
You have not provided even a single piece of evidence that actually supports that assertion.
Whereas you present what you call “actual receipts” and then get fact-checked into oblivion.
On the post: GOP Claim That Biden FCC Nom Gigi Sohn Wants To 'Censor Conservatives' Is AT&T & Rupert Murdoch Backed Gibberish
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds Like A Censor
I have no idea how you could say that CNN was involved in Holocaust denial. The other two I’ve at least heard, but this one is new to me.
On the post: New York Times Lies About City's Murder Rate, NYPD's Clearance Rate To Sell Fear To Its Readers
Re: Re: consequences needed
You’re confusing the 1st and 4th Amendments. There is no “exigent circumstances” exception to the 1st Amendment.
There are some exceptions to the 1A (such as knowingly false defamatory statements of fact, true threats, and knowing, direct incitement to imminent lawless action), but the Supreme Court has made it crystal clear on multiple occasions, including fairly recently, that they will not create any new exceptions to the 1st Amendment beyond what they already have.
On the post: Texas Court Gets It Right: Dumps Texas's Social Media Moderation Law As Clearly Unconstitutional
Re: Officially They're A Publisher
Social media companies have always been responsible for their own speech.
On the post: Josh Hawley Thinks We Should Break Up Twitter Because He Doesn't Like The Company's Editorial Choices
Re:
What led you to conclude that Twitter was either?
On the post: Ridley Scott Blames His Latest Movie Bombing At The Box Office On Facebook And Millennials, Rather Than Pandemic And Poor Marketing
So many problems.
Millennials and young people are less likely to be on Facebook. It’s actually becoming a running gag that only older people use Facebook anymore.
Millennials are getting older. I’m a millennial, and I’m 30.
Honestly, the marketing sucked. The only reason I knew the movie existed before I heard about this story is because my parents happened to see it and I remembered that, and they watched it because they wanted to go to see a movie, and that one happened to be showing. Sure, they loved it, but none of us learned it existed through any marketing or before the movie was released.
Millennials weren’t even part of the target demographic to begin with.
Fewer people are going to theaters right now due to the pandemic (among other factors), so releasing the movie in theaters exclusively was going to reduce the success compared to previous films.
Seriously, I don’t understand why us millennials are always to blame for stuff like this in general, but this is absurdly wrong.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
There’s an error on the link to James Burkhardt‘s comment.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
Everything you just posted is a lie.
On the post: Facebook's Nick Clegg Makes It Clear: If You're Looking To Undermine Section 230, That's EXACTLY What Facebook Wants
Re: Re: MM CANNOT even get in his mind that Facebook is TOO BIG.
Liar
On the post: Facebook's Nick Clegg Makes It Clear: If You're Looking To Undermine Section 230, That's EXACTLY What Facebook Wants
Re: Section 230 offers a deal: be immune HOSTS or liable publish
As has been explained to you before, there is no host/publisher distinction anywhere in §230. Which good for the public, as has also been explained to you before.
On the post: Facebook's Nick Clegg Makes It Clear: If You're Looking To Undermine Section 230, That's EXACTLY What Facebook Wants
Re: Re: On your "First Amendment" line, Greenwald has
Except it’s not unprecedented; it’s the same for most publications that host third-party content. And the same standards are held for everyone.
On the post: Journalists In St. Louis Discover State Agency Is Revealing Teacher Social Security Numbers; Governors Vows To Prosecute Journalists As Hackers
Re: Re: Multi-step process, my ass
The things we’re talking about expanding are expressly designed to be expanded, and—in fact—that is their entire purpose. There’s nothing criminal about it.
Again, every browser has this tool, and its express purpose is to reveal these nodes and allow them to be expanded. You don’t even need to have much computer know-how or download any additional tools to do this.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re:
I agree with you, but on the specific question he asked, that’s not exactly relevant. He’s saying that his stance—even if it is completely illogical and unnecessary and wrong—is not necessarily proof that he is homophobic or transphobic. I’d honestly be willing to concede that narrow issue; not every crazy idea about marriage is based on ignorance or prejudice regarding sex, gender, or humane sexuality, and this doesn’t mean that he isn’t completely and utterly wrong in that or other stances, nor does it mean that he’s not a homophobe or transphobe. It just means he has a crazy and wrong idea.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I will agree that holding your position—as absurd a position as it is—is not, at least as stated, necessarily transphobic, homophobic, or biphobic. It has a number of other problems, and this doesn’t necessarily mean you are not bigoted, but I will go as far as to say that bringing up that particular stance of yours is insufficient evidence of those particular varieties of bigotry at the very least. If that was your point, I will concede that specific issue.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean, it was in your list of the preceding terms leading to “marriage”.
It’s fine if I’m wrong about that, but if I am right, it shows a significant flaw in your argument. That’s why I mentioned it.
On a completely unrelated note—and this isn’t a criticism per se but just something I find amusing—I find it funny that you ended up calling the study of the evolution, origins, and transformation of words “entomology”—which is the study of insects among other similar organisms—rather than “etymology”. Again, this one isn’t a criticism or me pointing it out for the purpose of you correcting it or anything like that. It’s a fairly common mistake, after all, it’s easy to miss, and it was clear what you intended to say from context. It’s just one I find especially amusing.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re:
I’d imagine because it’s just a word, was never intended to offend, and isn’t inherently offensive. As I’ve said in at least one other comment, “A rose by any other name is still a rose.”
The legal process of marriage is purely and completely secular, so that’s false.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless I miss my guess, I believe that your logic necessarily means that the English word “merge” also has religious origins. Does that mean we need to remove that word from the government, too?
Next >>